2012 U.S. Elections

I find myself wanting to post the same thing across multiple threads about individual issues or candidates, so I thought I'd just make a general thread where we can discuss anything and everything related to the 2012 Elections in the U.S.

To start things off, here is an interesting piece that I'm sure will elicit some interesting comments from BR.

From the Internet to bioscience and energy, science and technology touch nearly every aspect of our lives. Below, a look at the positions of the five remaining Republican presidential candidates on seven different science and technology policy issues: (1) emergency contraception, (2) biological evolution, (3) climate change, (4) shale gas, (5) nuclear power and waste disposal, (6) space exploration, and (7) the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The candidates are listed in order they are currently polling: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Rick Perry.

Mitt Romney

Emergency Contraception: The science question here is contraception versus abortion? Most research finds that the common method of emergency contraception—taking high dose hormone pills after coitus—works by interfering with ovulation, not implantation. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney in 2005 vetoed a bill that would make the morning-after pill available over the counter in that state and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. The legislature overturned his veto. During a recent debate in New Hampshire, Romney was asked if states had the right to ban contraception. He replied, “I can’t imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking—given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so—you are asking could it constitutionally be done?” Of course, before the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, states did ban contraception.

Biological Evolution: In 2007, he stated, “I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe.” Romney added, “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.” While governor of Massachusetts, he opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

Climate Change: Flip-flopper? In his 2010 book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring—the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to factors out of our control.” In an October 2011 speech in Pennsylvania, the former governor became more skeptical: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Shale Gas: Romney welcomes shale gas production. “In Pennsylvania and neighboring states, we are seeing the tremendous benefits that domestic energy development can confer," he said. "Tapping the Marcellus shale deposits promises not only to supply clean and inexpensive energy to our country for the next century but also to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.”

Safety of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste Disposal: in an October poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans favor nuclear power and think it safe. Most experts believe that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada could safely store waste for up to one million years. In his 2010 book, No Apology, the candidate argues, “Nuclear power is a win-win; it's a domestic energy source with zero greenhouse emissions.” Of course, if climate change is not a problem then it’s just a “win.” During the Republican debate in Las Vegas, Romney opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal facility not on safety grounds, but due to local opposition, saying that the “people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want [it].” He also suggested that states might bid for taking a waste storage facility with adequate compensation.

Space Exploration: In the December 10 debate in Des Moines, Iowa, Romney declared that he was opposed to Newt Gingrich’s idea of establishing lunar mining colonies. However, back in 2008, Romney said, "I support the NASA program, the president’s vision program, which consists of a manned space mission back to the moon, as well as an ongoing mission to Mars." He was talking about President George W. Bush's proposals for a moon colony and a mission to Mars. Flip-flop?

SOPA: The Stop Online Piracy Act would enable censorship of the Internet in the guise of protecting copyright. At a New Hampshire campaign stop last month, a small business owner asked Romney what he thought of SOPA and he responded that he was against regulations that kill business. Mark this down as ambiguously against.

Newt Gingrich

Emergency Contraception: Gingrich, like Santorum, Perry, and Paul has signed the Personhood USA Pledge in favor of an amendment to the Constitution recognizing embryos as people. In December, Gingrich stumbled with the pro-life folks, when he said that life begins at “implantation” instead of at “conception.” He quickly backtracked. At an Iowa campaign event, a young woman told Gingrich, “I’m just a little concerned because I personally use birth control. And some forms of birth control would be outlawed if those personhood laws became the law of the land. So, do you support birth control, all forms of birth control?” Gingrich replied, “Any kind of pre-conception birth control would be legal. But I think post-conception birth control would be a form of abortion.” As noted above, most research does not support the notion that morning-after contraceptive pills prevent post-conception implantation.

Biological Evolution: Asked in 2006 by Discover magazine if he regarded evolution as “just a theory,” Gingrich replied, “Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have.” With regard to teaching intelligent design in public schools, Gingrich added, “I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy.”

Climate Change: Another flip-flopper? Gingrich famously did a 30-second television spot with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in which he argued, “We do agree that our country must take action to address climate change.” His 2007 book, Contract With the Earth, declared “climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques,” but added the he could not “be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities." His views have evidently evolved. He announced a few days ago that a chapter by a Texas atmospheric scientist commissioned for his upcoming book on environmental entrepreneurs would be cut.

Shale Gas: In a February 2011 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Gingrich stated, “We now have technology that let’s us go down as far as 8,000 feet, reach out as far as four miles horizontally. We can now produce commercially available natural gas from shale. We have an 1,100-year supply." In characteristic Gingrichian fashion, the former Speaker overstated the resources by 10-fold, but he is obviously enthusiastic about abundant natural gas supplies.

Safety of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste: In the 1990s as Speaker of the House, Gingrich spearheaded establishing the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site over President Bill Clinton’s objections. During the recent Las Vegas candidate debate, he tempered his views. “When I was in Congress," he said, "I worked with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place, and most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.” With regard to nuclear power production, he favors streamlining regulations and focusing on the development of “a whole new generation of very small nuclear power plants, that are very, very safe.” During a question and answer session at The Washington Post in 2007, when Contract With the Earth was released, Gingrich stated, "I would incentivize dismantling the oldest coal plants and building new nuclear plants. We may be able to get to a clean coal technology, but not in the near future. In the near future nuclear is a much better investment." Incentivize?

Space Exploration: Besides being in favor of lunar mining colonies, Gingrich also co-authored an op-ed in 2010 praising President Obama’s moves toward developing a commercial space launch industry. Gingrich also would like to use large monetary prizes as a way to leverage private firms into developing space capabilities. During the CNN debate in June, Gingrich did say, "If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure." Government space subsidies to private industry?

SOPA: Unable to find anything specific by Gingrich on this issue.

Rick Santorum

Emergency Contraception: Santorum signed the Personhood Pledge. Leaving aside emergency contraception, Santorum worries about the moral effects of conventional contraception. In October, he asserted of contraception, “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” Naturally, this comment produced a lot of alarm in some quarters. Santorum told The Washington Post last week that he thinks that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’ He has called Plan B emergency contraception an "abortifacient." Again, most research suggests that it's not.

Biological Evolution: In 2001, Santorum proposed legislation in the Senate that would have promoted the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Enough said.

Climate Change: Santorum is definitely a skeptic. “The idea that man, through the production of CO2—which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas—is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors,” said Santorum in June. He added, “"It's just an excuse for more government control of your life.”

Shale Gas: Santorum argues, “No new natural gas regulations, such as those being debated by Congress, should be enacted. The states are regulating the natural gas industry and there is no reason for the federal government to get involved.”

Safety of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste: He voted in favor the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and still supports it. At an Iowa campaign event in June, the former senator said, "My position is that we should phase out all energy subsidies and create a level playing field." Presumably, this would apply to nuclear power.

Space Exploration: He has a pretty thin record, but back in 1998, Santorum voted against an amendment that would have terminated funding for the International Space Station.

SOPA: When asked at a recent New Hampshire campaign rally if he supported SOPA, Santorum stated, “There is, and can be, a limitation on that. You know, freedom of speech.…They’re not absolute rights. They are rights that have responsibilities that come with them, and if you abuse those rights… then you have a consequence of you using that right.” Not a supporter of an unfettered Internet.

Ron Paul

Emergency Contraception: Paul has signed the Personhood Pledge with some caveats. During his first run for the Republican presidential nomination, Paul reportedly told the editorial board of the Kansas City Star that he opposed restrictions on emergency contraception and the so-called “day-after pill” because those decisions “have to be personal moral decisions.”

Biological Evolution: Back in 2009, during a Reddit question and answer session Paul said, “With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics. 'Do you believe in evolution or don’t you believe in evolution? Yes or no?' And then we’ll decide whether you should be President or not.” He did note that political controversy over the issue would abate if schools were private.

Climate Change: Paul has called global warming a “hoax.” During the 2009 Reddit session, Paul noted, “In the last 10 years the globe hasn’t been warming and the science is back and forth on this. Quite frankly, I think we spend way too much time on this issue, saying that if you don’t support the thesis that we’re in this period of global warming, somehow we don’t care about the environment. What we should care about is pollution.”

Shale Gas: Can’t find anything specific from Paul on this topic, but he generally supports private production of all energy sources.

Safety of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste: Paul was one of the few members of Congress to vote against funding the Yucca Mountain waste disposal facility. He reiterated his view during the Las Vegas candidate debate. Paul says he wants to “lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.” Paul also called the reaction of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan “overblown” but suggested that no new nuclear plants are likely to be built in the U.S. It should be noted that back in 2008, Paul sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy urging the agency to back a federal loan guarantee for NRG Energy to build two nuclear power plants in South Texas. In the Las Vegas debate, Paul argued, "The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies."

Space Exploration: Paul voted against the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that enacted the Obama administration’s new space policy, including efforts in the direction of commercialization. In 2008, Paul was just one of 15 members of Congress to vote against President George Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration. Paul did, however, vote in 2004 for the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act. After Paul’s congressional district was redrawn putting part of it near the Johnson Space Center, a group of Houston businesspeople met to explain the “value of the space shuttle” and Paul reportedly responded that “space travel isn’t in the Constitution.”

SOPA: At a recent campaign event Paul warned against increasing federal government threats to civil liberties. He added, “And they are planning more; they are planning the whole idea of controlling the Internet. They are saying that they are going to control piracy on the Internet, but what they are going to do is control your freedom and your privacy.” His son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is definitely against SOPA.

Rick Perry

Emergency Contraceptives: Perry signed the Personhood Pledge. I can’t find anything specific from Perry on this issue, but do note that Texas law requires [PDF] hospital emergency rooms to provide emergency contraception information to sexual assault victims.

Biological Evolution: At a campaign event in August, Perry expressed skepticism, saying that evolution is “a theory that’s out there” and that it’s “got some gaps in it.” Perry added, “Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."

Climate Change: Another skeptic. In October at a campaign event in New Hampshire Perry said, "I don't believe man-made global warming is settled in science enough."

Shale Gas: Perry is an enthusiast. In an energy policy speech in October, Perry asserted, “Right here in Pennsylvania, and across the state line in West Virginia and Ohio, we will tap the full potential of the Marcellus shale and create another 250,000 jobs by getting the [Environmental Protection Agency] out of the way. While Marcellus shale is today’s opportunity, the deeper Utica shale formations offer equally vast potential with more jobs over the horizon for Pennsylvania and its neighbors.”

Safety of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Waste: Generally supports. In 2008, Perry asked for federal loan guarantees to back the construction of two new nuclear plants for the NRG Energy’s South Texas project. In October, he told Fox News that he had changed his position on federal loan guarantees to energy projects and now opposes them. In the Las Vegas candidate debate, Perry agreed with Romney and Paul and opposed the Yucca Mountain waste facility.

Space Exploration: In July, Perry issued a press release criticizing the Obama administration for shutting down the space shuttle program. Perry vaguely added, “It is time to restore NASA to its core purpose of manned space exploration, and to define our vision for 21st Century space exploration, not in terms of what we cannot do, but instead in terms of what we will do.”

SOPA: I cannot find a specific statement from Perry on this issue, but the Texas Tribune reports that Perry opposes the bill.

Most of the candidates for the Republican nomination appear to be against emergency contraception; skeptical of biological evolution and climate change; think that nuclear power is safe and has a role in producing energy in the U.S., but against storing the industry's wastes in a facility most scientists think safe; in favor of developing shale gas production; make space exploration something of a policy afterthought; and don't want to fetter the Internet. On the first three issues, the candidates' positions align with the views of the Christian right which plays a big role in Republican party primary politics. However sincere their beliefs, this tilt may come back to haunt the eventual nominee since majorities of the independent voters needed to win the election in November do not share those views on emergency contraception, biological evolution, and climate change.

More than two-thirds of Americans would consider voting for a third-party presidential candidate, while nearly half of all voters think a third-party is needed, a new poll shows.

Sixty-eight percent of voters said they would “definitely vote for” or “consider voting for” a third-party candidate whom they agreed with on most issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll Friday.

Only 28 percent said that they would definitely not vote for an independent candidate.

Americans are split over whether the creation of a third party is necessary, however — 48 percent consider a third party necessary, while 49 percent say that it is not necessary.

The most likely to support the creation a third party? A majority of independents (61 percent), liberals (60 percent) and moderates (51 percent) said that a third party was necessary.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted Jan. 12-15, with a sample of 1,000 adults and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

I hope he wins because I'd like to see Obama hand his ass to him in a debate.

You realize that Gingrich is probably the best debater in America, correct? He would destroy Obama. The problem is that Presidential debates aren't as important as the primary votes. There will only be 2-3, and the rules will be different (no asking questions, silent audience, strict time limits, etc).

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You realize that Gingrich is probably the best debater in America, correct? He would destroy Obama. The problem is that Presidential debates aren't as important as the primary votes. There will only be 2-3, and the rules will be different (no asking questions, silent audience, strict time limits, etc).

Get real! You know he'll get mad and fly off the handle at something. Obama is no slouch as far as being able to present facts in a very logical and clear manner. Newt wouldn't stand a chance.

But go Newt!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

This is just polls only. The real one counts in beginning Sept where all the marbles are stacked.Gingrich will never become president!To many misconceptions he has and he boast way to much with his pitt bull manor he has.

He might, and it will not play as well to a less partisan audience. That being said, I still think he'd wipe the floor with Obama if he kept himself in check.

Quote:

Obama is no slouch as far as being able to present facts in a very logical and clear manner.

True. However, his media allies love to lap up his spun numbers and outright lies. In the SOTU, he made it sound like everything was on the right track and that millions of jobs were being created. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows this isn't true. Oh, sure..there is always a way of looking at the numbers, a way of presenting them that makes that statement technically accurate, but it's not true in reality. Ditto on the oil independence and drilling thing. He made that statement just days after vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline. Really?

Quote:

Newt wouldn't stand a chance.

But go Newt!

You know I'm not a Gingrich supporter, but in a debate, I disagree. You might be right about the general election, too, for these reasons:

1) Newt's personal likability is not good.

2) Newt doesn't have a great organization.

3) He has personal issues/character issues

4) He doesn't have a lot of money

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

He might, and it will not play as well to a less partisan audience. That being said, I still think he'd wipe the floor with Obama if he kept himself in check.

True. However, his media allies love to lap up his spun numbers and outright lies. In the SOTU, he made it sound like everything was on the right track and that millions of jobs were being created. Everyone--and I mean EVERYONE--knows this isn't true. Oh, sure..there is always a way of looking at the numbers, a way of presenting them that makes that statement technically accurate, but it's not true in reality. Ditto on the oil independence and drilling thing. He made that statement just days after vetoing the Keystone XL pipeline. Really?

You know I'm not a Gingrich supporter, but in a debate, I disagree. You might be right about the general election, too, for these reasons:

1) Newt's personal likability is not good.

2) Newt doesn't have a great organization.

3) He has personal issues/character issues

4) He doesn't have a lot of money

Quote:

I still think he'd wipe the floor with Obama if he kept himself in check.

You also thought there were WMD in Iraq when we invaded.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

That was a discussion. Just not one you agreed with. And no I'm not going away. As far the WMD it's a prime example right here of you ignoring the obvious. Something important ( especially given your signature ) to continue to point out.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

No, it was just a snarky comment that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. You use that constantly. And it's as if you are implying that you knew something I didn't. The reality is you were a clocked stopped at 6 p.m. when dinner time rolled around.

Quote:

And no I'm not going away. As far the WMD it's a prime example right here of you ignoring the obvious. Something important ( especially given your signature ) to continue to point out.

Quick...someone call the CIA and every major intelligence service in the world, including Britain, France, Germany and Russia. Someone tell them that we have a guy here that can see the future! He said back in 2003 that he KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD and that it was just so...OBVIOUS.

Dude, you are gonna make so much bank wit those skillz!

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

He must be pretty smart to come to the same conclusion as so many Democratic Party leaders.

By the way, no one said there were WMD's in Afghanistan or Libya, why did Obama take action there?

WMDs in Iraq? Come on. The intelligence that there were NO WMDs in Iraq had been public domain for years. The ONLY contrary source was "Curveball", a well-known opportunist, liar and fraud, and his "information" was the "justification" for the Bush Administration's obsession to invade and occupy that country.

The spineless shills that call themselves "Democrats" - Hillary Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Clarke etc. etc. - also KNEW there were no WMDs, but said NOTHING. Why? Because in the wake of 9/11's shock and awe effect on the US public, everyone in DC was too scared to say what needed to be said.. They did not have the FREEDOM to represent the electorate, or their own common sense.

The only people who were patriotic enough to call the traitors and weasels in Washington DC, were the legions of protesters, ad hominem'ed as "morans" by the Fox set, who came out to warn people about the upcoming disaster, and the needless loss of life on both sides, including 4500 dead and 10s of thousands of maimed US troops, sent there to fight for a multi trillion scam.

To lie to Congress to start a war is treason. The penalty for treason can be the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty as a rule (on account of the possibility of executing an innocent person), but in this case, there are no innocents. Those who engineered that war are guilty, and they should pay the ultimate penalty. Yes, they should have a fair trial in a real US court of law, which is more than what can be said for those unfortunate people in Gitmo... none of whom have been charged with anything.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

wmds in iraq? Come on. The intelligence that there were no wmds in iraq had been public domain for years. The only contrary source was "curveball", a well-known opportunist, liar and fraud, and his "information" was the "justification" for the bush administration's obsession to invade and occupy that country.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Amazing how articles like that never seem to explain why Xenophobic cultures like Japan routinely score much higher on international tests and comparisons than the U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

Since when is a science article a personal attack? The truth personally attacks you? Wait, that would actually explain a lot.

The science in that article is clearly pretty questionable and likewise most general reporting on science is also questionable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

WMDs in Iraq? Come on. The intelligence that there were NO WMDs in Iraq had been public domain for years. The ONLY contrary source was "Curveball", a well-known opportunist, liar and fraud, and his "information" was the "justification" for the Bush Administration's obsession to invade and occupy that country.

So the Bush "obsession" outweighed every check and balance in the entire Constitution and also somehow made all the brilliant people in the opposition party vote completely against their own wishes.

Quote:

The spineless shills that call themselves "Democrats" - Hillary Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Clarke etc. etc. - also KNEW there were no WMDs, but said NOTHING. Why? Because in the wake of 9/11's shock and awe effect on the US public, everyone in DC was too scared to say what needed to be said.. They did not have the FREEDOM to represent the electorate, or their own common sense.

They knew this and apparently so does Obama now so why, 10 years after 9/11 when the entire Republican Party had been purged from Federal power for 4 years in the Congress and will have been away from the Presidency for four years, oh and btw, the evil, influential but apparently idiotic Bush hasn't even been around for four years, why after all that are we will at war and sticking our nose all over the Middle East?

Quote:

The only people who were patriotic enough to call the traitors and weasels in Washington DC, were the legions of protesters, ad hominem'ed as "morans" by the Fox set, who came out to warn people about the upcoming disaster, and the needless loss of life on both sides, including 4500 dead and 10s of thousands of maimed US troops, sent there to fight for a multi trillion scam.

Yes all the people who have no power, no accountability and no say in the matter seem to always act one way and all the people who are the opposite of that, regardless of party, seem to act in the opposite manner. Strange isn't it?

Quote:

To lie to Congress to start a war is treason. The penalty for treason can be the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty as a rule (on account of the possibility of executing an innocent person), but in this case, there are no innocents. Those who engineered that war are guilty, and they should pay the ultimate penalty. Yes, they should have a fair trial in a real US court of law, which is more than what can be said for those unfortunate people in Gitmo... none of whom have been charged with anything.

This sounds like a death threat on Obama. You really should be more careful with your accusations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

That was a discussion. Just not one you agreed with. And no I'm not going away. As far the WMD it's a prime example right here of you ignoring the obvious. Something important ( especially given your signature ) to continue to point out.

You should still be ashamed of your "cycles" and "generation of Democratic control" claims. They were so horribly off that you shouldn't be credible on pretty much anything ever again. I can still remember the "Republicans aren't even a major party any more and will be confined to the South while Democrats rule the roost for a generation" nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

I suppose if someone bases his or her worldview on the denial of facts, the truth could be construed as an attack. Just seems a bit of a stretch to use that word though.

You have the facts you deny all the time pointed out to you. You're in denial by placing everything you don't want to hear on IGNORE.

The justifications presented to the American people did change. There was no outline of all these things upon going to war repeated daily from the Whitehouse. We were just told over and over again that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States. Which was bullshit. And when that proved to be bullshit, we got lots of other reasons tossed at us one at a time.

Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11 was misleading at the very least and calculatingly deceitful at worst. By the way, to juxtapose means to place two things close together, often so you can compare or contrast them. Couple that with what Richard Clarke revealed about Bush wanting to invade Iraq right after 9/11--yeah, we were definitely mislead.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I'm afraid it's just not that simple, BR. There were multiple justifications offered from the outset. These included:

1) WMD <-- This was a lie so obvious that we had a thread about it on these very boards.

2) The risk that Saddam might hand off WMD to a terrorist network of some sort. <-- Also an obvious lie

> 3) Iraq's clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire on hundreds of occasions.
>
> 4) Iraq's clear non-compliance with U.N. resolutions over 12 years, as well as its non-compliance
> with resolution 1441, requiring them to verifiably disarm.

5) Saddam's attempt to assassinate a former U.S. President. <-- This was manufactured bullshit.

As to the above #3 and #4, when exactly do we start bombing the fuck out of Israel for the thousands of ceasefire violations and UN violations they're guilty of?

The justifications presented to the American people did change. There was no outline of all these things upon going to war repeated daily from the Whitehouse. We were just told over and over again that Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States. Which was bullshit. And when that proved to be bullshit, we got lots of other reasons tossed at us one at a time.

I disagree with that. Iraq was a threat, just not a conventional military one. We saw the possibility of that threat after 9/11 occurred.

Quote:

Furthermore, the juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11 was misleading at the very least and calculatingly deceitful at worst. By the way, to juxtapose means to place two things close together, often so you can compare or contrast them. Couple that with what Richard Clarke revealed about Bush wanting to invade Iraq right after 9/11--yeah, we were definitely mislead.

Richard Clarke is a blowhard who wrote a book because he didn't get promoted. As for juxtaposition, the problem is a lot of that is your perception. I, for one, never heard the admin link Saddam to 9/11. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was stated many times that Saddam wasn't behind the attacks.

You're free to disagree, but understand that disagreement is really just a difference of opinion, not "denial of facts."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm afraid it's just not that simple, BR. There were multiple justifications offered from the outset. These included:

1) WMD

What WMDs? Where were they found, and what were they? Please tell us all.

How many times does it have to be said that the Bush Administration (alongside the US intelligence community) KNEW FULL WELL that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and had not been since 1991. The information was public domain. They agreed that "Iraq's WMDs" was the way to sell the war to an already shocked-and-awed US public; all the other reasons cited in meetings were rejected as unworkable... including "protecting Israel's security" as mentioned at that UV speech by Philip Zelikow in September 2002, some 7 months before the invasion started.

Quote:

2) The risk that Saddam might hand off WMD to a terrorist network of some sort.

Oh right. This is clearly garbage. The senior personnel in the Bush Administration, especially Rumsfeld, Armitage, Cheney et al. *knew* Saddam Hussein on a personal basis from the Reagan days. They were buddybuddy when the Reagan Administration supported Saddam Hussein including chemical and biological and conventional weapons, intelligence, logistics, diplomatic support, in their war against Iran, which had done nothing, except "have the wrong government". This was the time when Saddam Hussein was doing his worst atrocities... ie with United States support.

But, this is nothing new... the US Government (largely via its intelligence services) has a decades-long track record in overthrowing democracies all over the world, and enabling thugs all over the world.

Saddam Hussein was a power crazed egomaniac. He was also a secularist, being only nominally Muslim.. and referred to Islamists as "zealots" and "insane".The *last* thing he would ever do, would be to endanger his position by delegating some of that power to characters who might just assassinate him when his head was turned the other way. And Islamic militant leaders hated Saddam Hussein, typically referring to him as "an infidel".

Quote:

3) Iraq's clear violation of the 1991 ceasefire on hundreds of occasions.

There was never a true ceasefire in 1991. Targets all over Iraq - not limited to the 'no fly zone' were fair game from 1991 onwards.

Quote:

4) Iraq's clear non-compliance with U.N. resolutions over 12 years, as well as its non-compliance with resolution 1441, requiring them to verifiably disarm.

Good lord! A conservative suddenly starts quoting UNSC resolutions. Hey, since when were the UN considered so goddamned important? The organization quoted by so many right wingers as "trying to undermine US Sovereignty?" And while on the topic, Israel have been in violation of more UNSC Resolutions than many people have had hot dinners. At the last count, 52 violations of specific UNSC Resolutions. I guess pointing out such flagrant duplicity makes me a "Jew hater" or "Holocaust Denier"? If there was ever a rogue state.....

I suppose you believe all the claptrap cooked up by the Kuwatis.. such as the stuff, broadcast at nauseam by the US corporate weasel-media about the "Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and letting them die on the cold hospital floor". People still believe this stuff... Had to quote a liberal media source there, because the conservative-oriented mainstream press has never issued corrections and rebuttals.

Quote:

Now, was WMD the primary focus? Yes.

As I mentioned before, that is the angle that the Bush team selected: it was the only one that achieved full consensus, and because it injected fear and terror into the minds of a large segment of the American public, right on the back of 9/11. The mass-broadcast lies about Iraq's "WMDs" and their "ability to strike at 45 minutes notice", was a clear example of state and media sponsored 2nd degree terrorism.

Quote:

That doesn't mean there were "shifting justifications" for the war.

The Bush team decided to go to war against Iraq (and Afghanistan, and up to 7 other mid east nations) in January 2001, some 8 months prior to 9/11. It was a done deal, WMDs or no WMDs.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

I disagree with that. Iraq was a threat, just not a conventional military one. We saw the possibility of that threat after 9/11 occurred.

Richard Clarke is a blowhard who wrote a book because he didn't get promoted. As for juxtaposition, the problem is a lot of that is your perception. I, for one, never heard the admin link Saddam to 9/11. In fact, it was just the opposite. It was stated many times that Saddam wasn't behind the attacks.

Oh really? How quickly you forget...

The "link" between Iraq and 9/11 was deliberately fabricated by the White House. Then they got called on it.. and of course the mainstream corporate weasel-media ignored never followed it up. Imagine if a liberal had done an equivalent act in misleading the nation in order to justify an agenda... Oh my.